Golden Matchups

This thread is inspired by the Golden Pairs feature on cricinfo. The idea is to determine who would win in a hypothetical faceoff between a bowler and batsman in cricket history in a series of 10 matches. So, for example, if I think Dravid woud dominate Mohammad Sami, I would say that Dravid beats Sami 8/10, and if I feel Allan Donald has an edge over Inzamam, I would say that Donald trumps Inzi 6-7/10 times. So just a few matchups to set this off:

Warne vs. Viv Richards (Viv had some occasional trouble with Chander and Qadir, but Warne had his own against the bombastic Pietersen who bats like Richards)

Imran vs. Tendulkar (really hard to say)

Dennis Lillee vs. Steve Waugh (again, very tough to call)

Murali vs. Gavaskar (Gavaskar has an edge IMO, he was superb at playing spin)

This thread is inspired by the Golden Pairs feature on cricinfo. The idea is to determine who would win in a hypothetical faceoff between a bowler and batsman in cricket history in a series of 10 matches. So, for example, if I think Dravid woud dominate Mohammad Sami, I would say that Dravid beats Sami 8/10, and if I feel Allan Donald has an edge over Inzamam, I would say that Donald trumps Inzi 6-7/10 times. So just a few matchups to set this off:

Warne vs. Viv Richards (Viv had some occasional trouble with Chander and Qadir, but Warne had his own against the bombastic Pietersen who bats like Richards)

Imran vs. Tendulkar (really hard to say)

Dennis Lillee vs. Steve Waugh (again, very tough to call)

Murali vs. Gavaskar (Gavaskar has an edge IMO, he was superb at playing spin)

would most probably be 5 out of 10. at their respective peaks imran is as likely to knock sachin's out early as tendulkar carting him around the ground. have seen khan make attacking batsmen look like fools and sachin make great fast bowlers cry "mommy".

Warne (6 out of 10)
Imran (7 out of 10)
S Waugh (5.1 out of 10)
Gavaskar (7.5 out of 10)
Border (6 out of 10)
Lara (8 out of 10)Hadlee (9.5 out of 10)
Barnes (5.0000001 out of 10)

Although this probably would be a popular view given that many people see Hayden as batsman who would fail againts top-class bowlers/attacks. IMO this is unfortunate since Hayden at the back end of his career sort of extinguished this myth to some degree.

Although this probably would be a popular view given that many people see Hayden as batsman who would fail againts top-class bowlers/attacks. IMO this is unfortunate since Hayden at the back end of his career sort of extinguished this myth to some degree.

I actually think he would do fairly better against Hadlee. His real troubles are against 90mph + high pace inswing bowling like Shoaib in 2004, Flintoff/Jones in 2005 and Steyn in 2008. He didn't really seem troubled by medium pace seamers like Pollock. Having said that, Hadlee is arguably the best of all, so I would still give him 6-7/10 over Hayden.

On Australian pitches in the 2000s, Hayden would kill Hadlee. Probably a solid 7/8-10 for Hayden.

hayden was capable of killing mediocre bowlers. but hadlee belonged to the super elite class - a top 10 pace bowler of all time. dont think matty hayden's weak technique could have withstood hadlee's swing, cut, accuracy and variation.

paddles was anyway well above pollock's pace. so no stepping out business for mr. hayden. he will have to stay put in crease and he will succumb to his own dodgy back foot play. hadlee averaged an incredible 17+ runs per wicket in australia. in the batsmen friendly 2000s he would have given away more than that; probably as much as mcgrath, but not too much.